Os Abutres

I resisted to the end only because Jean Paul Belmondo is a nice actor. The script and direction are very weak, poorly directed fight scenes, exaggerations at every step, etc. You can see the difference in quality between the films of the '70s and those of the' 80s, clearly to the detriment of those of the '80s. And I'm not just talking about Belmondo's films, but about all the world's cinema.

The film ultimately stands as a flawed yet somewhat entertaining entry in the World War II genre, marred by significant shortcomings that prevent it from reaching the heights of more accomplished war films. While it presents an engaging premise and makes solid use of its desert setting, its execution leaves much to be desired, particularly in terms of direction, acting credibility, and overall cohesion.

Visually, the film has its moments, with the cinematography effectively capturing the harsh, sun-drenched landscapes that reinforce the sense of isolation. However, the film suffers from noticeable stylistic anachronisms. Hairstyles, wardrobe choices, and certain props feel out of place for the 1940s setting, diminishing the immersion. While some war films meticulously recreate period-accurate aesthetics, this one takes a looser, less disciplined approach, which undermines its credibility.

The action sequences are competently staged, relying on practical effects and pyrotechnics that add a degree of realism. Yet, beyond these surface-level thrills, the film lacks the weight and intensity needed to make its set pieces truly impactful. The choreography often feels too staged, with little of the raw unpredictability that characterizes the best war films. This issue extends to the overall staging of scenes, where group movements and background action feel poorly coordinated. There is a clear lack of directorial control over the positioning and purpose of secondary characters, leading to a sense of confusion in the mise-en-scène. Extras and minor players often appear aimless, failing to contribute meaningfully to the atmosphere of a given moment.

The film's pacing is another drawback. It meanders between moments of tension, adventure, and humor without ever fully committing to a cohesive tone. Some comedic elements feel forced, clashing with the more serious themes, and the lack of a clear directorial vision results in tonal inconsistencies that weaken the narrative. Unlike war films that successfully balance humor with danger-such as Kelly's Heroes, which seamlessly integrates irreverence with wartime peril-this film stumbles in its attempt to do the same. The humor often undercuts the stakes rather than enhancing the tension, making it difficult to invest fully in the unfolding events.

Performance-wise, the film is largely let down by its direction rather than the actors themselves. The lead delivers a serviceable performance, bringing charisma to the role, but the dialogue often feels under-rehearsed, with interactions that lack spontaneity and conviction. Supporting characters fare even worse, with many seemingly uncertain of their purpose in each scene. The delivery of lines frequently feels stilted, as if the cast was not given sufficient preparation or clear direction on how to approach their roles. The result is a series of interactions that feel hollow, failing to create the necessary dramatic tension or chemistry between characters.

The film's technical aspects further highlight its shortcomings. In addition to anachronistic design choices, there are clear signs of rushed production, with continuity errors and inconsistencies in character positioning between shots. These issues, while minor on their own, accumulate over the course of the film, reinforcing the sense that it was not as tightly controlled as it should have been. A strong director can elevate even a modestly budgeted film through precise scene blocking and meticulous attention to detail, but that level of craftsmanship is noticeably absent here.

The soundtrack, while serviceable, does little to elevate the film. It provides the expected cues for tension and action but lacks the kind of memorable themes that define truly great war films. At times, it even feels at odds with the scenes, further emphasizing the tonal confusion that plagues the movie.

In the end, the film earns a passing grade, but only barely. It is not without entertainment value, particularly for those who appreciate war films with a more lighthearted or adventurous slant. However, its lack of directorial control, underdeveloped performances, and overall uneven execution prevent it from standing out. For dedicated fans of World War II cinema, it remains a curiosity rather than a must-watch-a film that had potential but ultimately falls short due to its lack of polish and coherence.

Ok it's a rip off of kelly 's heroes, but it 's worth the view if you like Belmondo

The actors are good (Belmondo play Belmondo..) the photography is good, the music too (the theme is simple, but it's ok) the scenario is well written on the beginning, and has is flaw after.. The characters are well written, the dialogs too.

The only thinks that really bother me is, the cheapness of the movie : The cannon shots on the tower, with no impact, just some wood and dirt on the top for simulate the explosion The dummy's on the ground for the legionary etc... there is a lot of small thinks like that ... The outside/inside scenery are sometimes ok, but it is use too much... half of the movie is take place on the same areas... There is a lot of flawless in the scenario, way too simple things that are not explain or develop (it's is war time remember ...) but it's a comedy I guess ... a comedy with a lot of death that nobody really care in the movie...

I enjoy watching it, it's funny sometimes, the end was not particularly good in my opinion, but I like how the movie can do such drastic choices in the middle of it.

It worth the view if you like Belmondo.

At one point in Les Morfalous, Jean-Paul Belmondo's character tells the warrant officer: "I'll be frank, Edouard. It's not polite to mock us." Pause. "It's not polite." Although this war story seems often to be a bargain basement version of Kelly's Heroes, it has its moments. Another moment comes when the bank director's wife, observing her husband for the last time, gets a chance to make one really mean comment that is a play on words. Those moments do not include the cheap explosions that do no damage to the Tunisian town set where most of the action takes place in. Les Morfalous is the last of seven (by my count in IMDb) pairings of Belmondo and director Henri Verneuil. Belmondo in this movie seems as spry as ever, fighting, running and chewing the scenery. But age was catching up to him, which shows in close ups. Verneuil, a great action director, decided to end his career, after this movie, by making a series of dramatic movies about the Turkish genocide of the Armenians during World War One. I think he made the right decision, by ending his career making movies he cared about. Les Morfalous is a star vehicle that lacks the usual production gloss of Belmondo's movies in the 60s and 70s. The version I saw on the NYC CUNY Channel had subtitles but the print was grainy and washed out. Even a great print could not hide this movie's flaws: cheap action, choppy editing and too many dull characters. Belmondo is fine, the actor who plays the German officer is fine, the bank director's wife is very good looking and on target when she lists the mistakes Belmondo's sergeant made. In the end, Les Morafalous is a tired movie with too small a budget and not enough interesting action for a war movie.

This is a Movie playing in World War II with Legionaires,it`s not even the best Movie Belmondo ever did,but it`s worth having a look at it. Jean-Paul Belmondo plays his typical ironic,charming and sporting role as he ever did(in the late 70`s and 80`s).There`s a lot of Action in it some Kind of humor and in my opinion tense,all in all for me it`s a clear 8.